Not promoting Nihang order of Sikhs.

RedTagAlan · 05/06/2026 03:45

Justmerach · 05/06/2026 02:38

The case of Henry Novak.who was murdered by a Sikh from the Nihang order of Sikhs. I think that religion can be used a force for conflict resolution and also conflict. People tend to exploit religion who are extremist. Article 18 of the UN is freedom of thought and religion.
I had considered the Sikh as quite peaceful and people. I have had a look Nihang order of Sikhs and they seem like a dangerous group going around with weapons on them. I don't think that this should be permitted if they do. They should be banned from going around with weapons and I think violent groups should not feature on search engines.
I would get it pulled from the internet being ranked on searches and also in communications groups measures taken to prevent them.
I just have to work out how to go about trying to get it taken out of search.
What do you think?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjepqy29jdpo

You mention article 18 of the UN declaration on human rights:

"Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

But if you invoke Article 18, you also have to mention Article 29 paragraph 2:

"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

So freedoms can be limited by law, if the freedom of one group is detrimental to the freedoms of others.

So your knife thing is covered. It's a case of weighing up rights of different groups and deciding on the greater good. Freedom of religion is not infinite. It can be, and really often has to be, limited. And those limits will change as society changes.

And this is where I think at can get difficult. Because if you try to limit the rights of one group, they can use the same arguments to limit the rights of others. It is a proverbial can of worms.

For Example. This is in the Christian Bible :

1Ti 2:12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (KJV)

I would say that is against the law of the land in the UK

So, if one group goes for the religious freedom of another group care is needed. Because they, or anyone really, can legitimately go after the religious freedoms of others.

Original poster

Justmerach · 05/06/2026 05:22

RedTagAlan this is really about extremist groups who are a safety risk . There may be some other groups from other religions that should be in this and that doesn’t mean banning that religion outright necessarily. For example I think an extreme Christian group that someone from this was following attempted to assassinate Donald Trump quite recently.
Looking at this I think it would go under counter terrorism and hopefully they are flagged about it already. They have banned some groups..not from searches, but they could work on it.
I think if this Sikh group is carrying weapons that it would be in good honour of the deceased to ban it. This is not about all Sikh people, but this group if they do permit people to carry weapons.
This is what the Counter terrorism has banned recently.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/three-groups-to-be-proscribed

Three groups to be proscribed

Palestine Action, Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement set to be banned following advice from cross-government experts.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/three-groups-to-be-proscribed

OP posts:

Icanseeasquirrel · 05/06/2026 06:09

I know a Nihang Sikh very well. He is horrified by this case and doesn’t recognise the murderer as a true Nihang. This is not a problematic group. My friend does masses of charity work and would be the first to leap to the defence of anyone being attacked. It’s an aberration and absolutely not typical of their group.
Can’t stop occasional shitty people being shitty people but no need to go after the Sikhs for this.

RedTagAlan · 05/06/2026 06:16

Justmerach · 05/06/2026 05:22

RedTagAlan this is really about extremist groups who are a safety risk . There may be some other groups from other religions that should be in this and that doesn’t mean banning that religion outright necessarily. For example I think an extreme Christian group that someone from this was following attempted to assassinate Donald Trump quite recently.
Looking at this I think it would go under counter terrorism and hopefully they are flagged about it already. They have banned some groups..not from searches, but they could work on it.
I think if this Sikh group is carrying weapons that it would be in good honour of the deceased to ban it. This is not about all Sikh people, but this group if they do permit people to carry weapons.
This is what the Counter terrorism has banned recently.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/three-groups-to-be-proscribed

Edited

Quote : " For example I think an extreme Christian group that someone was following attempted to assassinate Donald Trump quite recently.".

What attempt was that and what Christian group ? I have not heard of any Christian connection. I am genuinely interested to know. I would have expected that to be headline news.

If you want to proscribe a religious group, then fair enough. But you need evidence that any act was because of the group, and that the act was one of terrorism, in the name of the group. Or a risk assessment I suppose.

If a Catholic for example, murders a protestant, but the murder is a murder and not an act of terror in the name of Catholicism, then I don't think you would be calling for the Catholic Church to be proscribed ?

And when you talk about extremist groups and conflate that directly with a religion, then I think that is shaky ground, unless you have firm evidence that the act was directly related to the specific religion, and based on it's beliefs.

And re extremist groups, I am atheist. And I reckon I could make a pretty good case that most religions are by definition extremist and damaging to society as a whole.

So I think the spirit of Article 18 ( Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance), has to be respected by all.

Personally, I would like to see that article amended, or another article added. To guarantee freedom from religion as a human right.

It is all about give and take.

Original poster

Justmerach · 05/06/2026 07:58

This is another article on this group by a member in a case where someone else was murdered. Likely most members will not carry weapons. It should not be allowed that any of them should carry weapons.
https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/nihang-singhu-border-murder-tomar-b1941908.html

The case with Trump was quite nasty and it was Trump himself that came on the news and he said was a Christian following extremist ideas the suspect.

Terrorism and extremism is not limited to religion, but this person was from this order and carrying a weapon, so it needs to be looked into why. What gave the motivation to do it . I think that not enough is being broadcast about actually was it extremism that led this Digwa to carry a weapon. There are questions to be asked. Does any sacred texts are incite some.

Who are the Nihangs - the group linked to grisly lynching of labourer

Farmer unions and opposition party leaders allege a conspiracy behind the murder

https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/nihang-singhu-border-murder-tomar-b1941908.html

OP posts:

Original poster

Justmerach · 05/06/2026 08:11

This is an interesting document from the Crown court on the case in question explaining in points 10-12 about carrying weapons.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Digwa-Final-Sentencing-Remarks.pdf

OP posts:

RedTagAlan · 05/06/2026 08:20

Justmerach · 05/06/2026 07:58

This is another article on this group by a member in a case where someone else was murdered. Likely most members will not carry weapons. It should not be allowed that any of them should carry weapons.
https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/nihang-singhu-border-murder-tomar-b1941908.html

The case with Trump was quite nasty and it was Trump himself that came on the news and he said was a Christian following extremist ideas the suspect.

Terrorism and extremism is not limited to religion, but this person was from this order and carrying a weapon, so it needs to be looked into why. What gave the motivation to do it . I think that not enough is being broadcast about actually was it extremism that led this Digwa to carry a weapon. There are questions to be asked. Does any sacred texts are incite some.

Edited

I can't open that link but here in an alternate report:

Nihang Saravjit Singh arrested for brutal killing at Singhu Border - Digpu News

It's from 2021.

I have heard of the Sikh campaign for a homeland in India, Khalistan, and there was stuff about something in Canada a few years back. I think that was a Sikh Khalistani separatist that was killed in Canada , allegedly by Indian security ? There was a diplomatic spat.

You think they should be proscribed in the UK? Fair enough, make your case.

On This, quote "The case with Trump was quite nasty and it was Trump himself that came on the news and he said was a Christian following extremist ideas the suspect.". Any more on that ? There might be a case for proscribing Christianity in the UK too?

Original poster

Justmerach · 05/06/2026 08:28

This is from the crown court case the link that I posted below. I will say I have a cousin who was murdered by an extremist Muslim and it was in the press. He was murdered with a weapon. Islam doesn't promote people to carry weapons. I didn't think that Islam should be limited. Perhaps if there are extremist groups they should. The case reminds me of my cousins which the suspects were also sentenced.

You were sober but were carrying a large Sikh dagger in a sheath attached to a belt over the outside of your clothing. It is a strict requirement of the Sikh faith to have a knife, called a kirpan, at all times. Generally, this will be a small knife, hidden from view, often on a length of cord and worn around the neck. You had that but, in addition, the large dagger in a sheath. You are a member of an order of Sikhs called the Nihang who have a tradition of having a second knife, or kirpan and that is often fully visible, believing that the guru will look favourably on that. You observed that tradition in your everyday life, at work and in public. However, it was not a strict requirement; that is borne out by the fact that neither your brother nor father who arrived on the scene after you had stabbed Henry were so dressed. According to Professor Gurnam Singh,
Professor of Sociology and an expert in the field: “Over the last 30 years, therehas been a trend towards younger people wearing a kirpan with pride, in adesire to express their cultural identity. They see it as an act of resistance to being denied the ability otherwise to display their identity.”
The privilege extended to practising Sikhs of being allowed to be in public witha bladed article and, particularly in respect of the large dagger, a highly dangerous weapon, easily accessible to the wearer, brings with it huge responsibility.
It is a fundamental principle of Sikhism that any kirpan is worn as a symbol of religious faith and is never to be carried for an offensive purpose. The legal approach to the carrying of such a knife, as long as the blade length does not exceed 9 inches, is that an offence of Having a Bladed Article in a public place will not be prosecuted; there has been an acceptance that its possession in those circumstances, can amount to a good religious and, therefore, legal reason forhaving it. The blade of the knife will not be on display; either it is under clothing or, alternatively, in a sheath. For both, it is a religious and, consequently, legal requirement that a kirpan should only be used offensively as a last resort, which would include its use in legal self-defence. In other words, only if use is necessary and, if so, reasonable in the circumstances. It is obvious that for use to be reasonable, any perceived threat justifying its use would only be in circumstances of great seriousness and urgency.

OP posts:

RedTagAlan · 05/06/2026 08:33

Justmerach · 05/06/2026 08:28

This is from the crown court case the link that I posted below. I will say I have a cousin who was murdered by an extremist Muslim and it was in the press. He was murdered with a weapon. Islam doesn't promote people to carry weapons. I didn't think that Islam should be limited. Perhaps if there are extremist groups they should. The case reminds me of my cousins which the suspects were also sentenced.

You were sober but were carrying a large Sikh dagger in a sheath attached to a belt over the outside of your clothing. It is a strict requirement of the Sikh faith to have a knife, called a kirpan, at all times. Generally, this will be a small knife, hidden from view, often on a length of cord and worn around the neck. You had that but, in addition, the large dagger in a sheath. You are a member of an order of Sikhs called the Nihang who have a tradition of having a second knife, or kirpan and that is often fully visible, believing that the guru will look favourably on that. You observed that tradition in your everyday life, at work and in public. However, it was not a strict requirement; that is borne out by the fact that neither your brother nor father who arrived on the scene after you had stabbed Henry were so dressed. According to Professor Gurnam Singh,
Professor of Sociology and an expert in the field: “Over the last 30 years, therehas been a trend towards younger people wearing a kirpan with pride, in adesire to express their cultural identity. They see it as an act of resistance to being denied the ability otherwise to display their identity.”
The privilege extended to practising Sikhs of being allowed to be in public witha bladed article and, particularly in respect of the large dagger, a highly dangerous weapon, easily accessible to the wearer, brings with it huge responsibility.
It is a fundamental principle of Sikhism that any kirpan is worn as a symbol of religious faith and is never to be carried for an offensive purpose. The legal approach to the carrying of such a knife, as long as the blade length does not exceed 9 inches, is that an offence of Having a Bladed Article in a public place will not be prosecuted; there has been an acceptance that its possession in those circumstances, can amount to a good religious and, therefore, legal reason forhaving it. The blade of the knife will not be on display; either it is under clothing or, alternatively, in a sheath. For both, it is a religious and, consequently, legal requirement that a kirpan should only be used offensively as a last resort, which would include its use in legal self-defence. In other words, only if use is necessary and, if so, reasonable in the circumstances. It is obvious that for use to be reasonable, any perceived threat justifying its use would only be in circumstances of great seriousness and urgency.

Edited

Yup, there are threads on this murder.

But you are talking about proscribing a religion, so go ahead and make your case.

Original poster

Justmerach · 05/06/2026 08:41

RedTagAlan · 05/06/2026 08:33

Yup, there are threads on this murder.

But you are talking about proscribing a religion, so go ahead and make your case.

Show quote history

Could you tell me what section those threads are in as I couldn't see other threads on this. I think that the knife wearing needs to be looked at even if they don't need to be proscribed.

The Donald Trump case the suspect appeared to be a Christian, but he seemed to be self made where he got his ideas from..
https://www.christianitytoday.com/2026/04/washington-press-dinner-attacker-christian-faith/

OP posts:

RedTagAlan · 05/06/2026 08:49

Justmerach · 05/06/2026 08:41

Could you tell me what section those threads are in as I couldn't see other threads on this. I think that the knife wearing needs to be looked at even if they don't need to be proscribed.

The Donald Trump case the suspect appeared to be a Christian, but he seemed to be self made where he got his ideas from..
https://www.christianitytoday.com/2026/04/washington-press-dinner-attacker-christian-faith/

Edited

Show quote history

Here you go :

Henry Nowak second thread, as requested. | Mumsnet

Re the Trump article you posted. A quote from that :

"..the suspected gunman wrote to family members and suggested his violence was an act of faith to defend the oppressed."

Not sure if we can proscribe Christianity on that, but yeah, it might be worth a try.

Henry Nowak second thread, as requested. | Mumsnet

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5536249-henry-nowak?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5537474-henry-nowak-second-thread-as-requested

Original poster

Justmerach · 05/06/2026 09:52

RedTagAlan · 05/06/2026 08:49

Here you go :

Henry Nowak second thread, as requested. | Mumsnet

Re the Trump article you posted. A quote from that :

"..the suspected gunman wrote to family members and suggested his violence was an act of faith to defend the oppressed."

Not sure if we can proscribe Christianity on that, but yeah, it might be worth a try.

Show quote history

Thank you for posting it.

This is a discussion and debate in which some insight may be arrived at.

Based on the crown report posted in this thread-
So two people can get into an argument and one can be injured with a blade less than 9 inch. Some of these adherents wear a second weapon. May be it is some fringe extremist in this group that may do.I would like the knives to be reviewed rather than trying to invoke being proscribed on them. Being a Sikh can lose your temper still and could pull out a blade in a heated argument. I cannot say I feel safe with someone carrying a concealed blade underneath clothing. Just recently two brothers head butted police because they said their mother was racially abused. Say if they was carrying a weapon to.

It seems that they are allowed in law to carry a blade under 9 inch Sikh's. We have the law of the land not to carry a weapon but it is right that this group is allowed not to adhere to that.

OP posts:

RedTagAlan · 05/06/2026 13:32

Justmerach · 05/06/2026 09:52

Thank you for posting it.

This is a discussion and debate in which some insight may be arrived at.

Based on the crown report posted in this thread-
So two people can get into an argument and one can be injured with a blade less than 9 inch. Some of these adherents wear a second weapon. May be it is some fringe extremist in this group that may do.I would like the knives to be reviewed rather than trying to invoke being proscribed on them. Being a Sikh can lose your temper still and could pull out a blade in a heated argument. I cannot say I feel safe with someone carrying a concealed blade underneath clothing. Just recently two brothers head butted police because they said their mother was racially abused. Say if they was carrying a weapon to.

It seems that they are allowed in law to carry a blade under 9 inch Sikh's. We have the law of the land not to carry a weapon but it is right that this group is allowed not to adhere to that.

Edited

Show quote history

Good stuff. So not proscription, but a discussion on carrying blades. I don't see how anyone can rationally disagree with that.

As a matter of interest, I have carried a knife in the British Isles. A 10 inch knife I think. A fish filleting knife in my fishing tackle bag when going sea fishing. To fillet fish I caught to make bait,

There are valid reasons for carrying some blades within the law. Is religion a valid reason ? I would say probably not. Because a symbolic item could surely be carried instead.